Man sought redress over abuse by named Brothers in 1960sThu, Dec 6, 2018, 13:45Mary CarolanThe man was in the an industrial school between 1962 and 1964 A man who was aged 12 when sent by a court to an industrial school for two years over stealing some food and a one crown coin from a neighbour’s house has won an important Supreme Court appeal over a refusal to consider his redress application.He sought redress over being allegedly severely physically and sexually abused by named Brothers at the school between late 1962 and April 1964. He said this adversely impacted on him as an adult and he had periods of imprisonment and suffered from sexual dysfunction which lead to the breakdown of his first marriage.He did not apply for redress within the three-year period before September 2005 required under the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002. When he applied in 2008, the Residential Institutions Redress Board refused that over delay.He got new solicitors and applied again in late 2010, supported by reports from a consultant psychiatrist which explained he used repression so as to cope with his memories of his time in care. The Board granted an oral hearing in November 2011 and the man, his wife and a psychiatrist gave evidence.In January 2012, the Board refused the second redress application after finding there were no “exceptional” circumstances within the meaning of Section 8.2 of the 2002 Act that allowed it exercise its discretion under the Act to extend time.He went to the High Court in 2016 which ruled he had not shown “good and sufficient reason”, within the meaning of order 84 of the superior court rules, for his delay in seeking judicial review entitling him to an extension of time for such review. He appealed and, by a three to two majority on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in his favour.The appeal centred on the meaning of “good and sufficient reason” in order 84; interpretation of Section 8.2 and the nature of the test to be applied by the Board in deciding if exceptional circumstances exist to extend time. Ms Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan, with whom Mr Justice John MacMenamin and Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley agreed, found the man had established good and sufficient reason to extend time for judicial review and that his delay in seeking judicial review within the stipulated three month period was due to factors outside his control.The Board had said, if the man won his appeal, it would reconsider his redress application without need for judicial review and the matter will now be reheard by it. Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell and Ms Justice Mary Irvine disagreed the man was entitled to extension of time for judicial review. In the majority decision, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan concluded the High Court was wrong in principle in deciding it could not, when considering whether to extend time for judicial review, take into account a 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeal, McE v the Redress Board.The McE judgment reversed another refusal by the Board to extend time after disagreeing with the Board about what constitutes “exceptional” circumstances in Section 8.2.The COA said that term should be construed as “widely and liberally as can fairly be done” because the Act is remedial. Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan held the McE decision applies, in principle, retrospectively to all persons who, before that judgment, suffered the same or similar wrong as McE.On all the facts and circumstances, including the change in construction of Section 8.2 as a result of McE, the man has shown good and sufficient reasons for extending time to seek judicial review, she held. Those reasons included being legally advised in 2012, based on then court decisions concerning redress, a judicial review would not succeed. The man was of limited means and said the prospect of having costs awarded against him was “frightening”. It was also not disputed he was in the industrial school between 1962 and 1964, had identified those who allegedly abused him and the 2002 Act established a no fault redress scheme intended to compensate persons like him.Source - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-sent-to-industrial-school-as-boy-for-stealing-food-and-coin-wins-supreme-court-case-1.3722508See also - They Said that Applications to the Redress Board are CLOSED! This is a Lie!!See More

THREAD: This piece by @ococonuts reveals what appears to be yet more disturbing treatment of Magdalene survivors by the Department of Justice. Women excluded from Magdalene laundries redress must provide ‘records’ of work https://t.co/Y9KxzFzEHg— Dr Maeve O'Rourke (@maeveorourke) November 15, 2018 Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke24h24 hours agoThis week the Department published an 'Addendum' to the Terms of the Magdalene scheme which finally sets up a process to compensate women who were forced to work in Magdalene Laundries as children -- while they should have been in school. http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Addendum%20FINAL.pdf/Files/Addendum%20FINAL.pdf … Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke24h24 hours agoIn the Addendum, the Department states that the women must provide 'evidence' that they actually worked in the Magdalene Laundries, yet it fails to define what it means by 'evidence'. Going by the DOJ's previous practice, one must assume that they mean records. Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke24h24 hours agoIn the Ombudsman's Nov 2017 report on the DOJ's previous 'maladministration' of the scheme, he found: 'There was an over reliance on the records of the congregations and it is not apparent what weight if any was afforded to the testimony of the women and/or their relatives. Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke24h24 hours agoThis week's Addendum (which is supposed to fix the problems the Ombudsman identified) says the women's applications must include 'Records from that institution and/or from the relevant Magdalen institution stating that you worked in the laundry and the period of time involved.' Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke24h24 hours agoUnbelievably, the Addendum adds: 'The calculation will be made on the basis that no child under 12 years of age worked in a Magdalen laundry, unless an applicant provides evidence of such work before she reached the age of 12 years.'Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke24h24 hours agoNow, I have never seen a single record of a return to the government pursuant to the factories legislation and regulations (stating children's ages and hours worked, etc) in the info the nuns have provided in response to personal data access requests by survivors.Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoThis suggests that they did not keep - or do not still have - the records they were legally required to create under the Conditions of Employment (Records) Regulations 1947, sections 122 and 124 Factories Act 1955, and Factories (General Register) Regulations 1956. Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoIt's not like we can find out from the government whether any such records were kept, because the Department of the Taoiseach refuses to release any of the contents of the McAleese archive from its possession -- the archive of all state records concerning the Magdalene Laundries Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoThe Taoiseach's Dept recently refused an FOI request for the Index (yes...the Index) to the McAleese archive stating 'The records...are stored in this Department for the purposes of safe keeping...and are not held or within the control of the Dept for the purposes of the FOI Act' Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoThis refusal was confirmed on appeal by a more senior member of staff, giving absolutely no reasons for his decision to confirm it. Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoRegarding the Department's statement in the addendum that it's presumed girls did not work in Magdalene Laundries under the age of 12: @maglaundries know numerous women who did, and the McAleese report acknowledges that girls as young as 9 were in Magdalene Laundries. Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoThe Department's presumption that girls under 12 did not work in Magdalene Laundries must be based on 'evidence' coming from the nuns. It is imperative that that evidence be made publicly known, and at the very least put before the survivors for their comment. Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoIs the Department accepting the nuns' testimony as 'evidence'? In the Ombudsman's report he noted that DOJ 'Correspondence to the women is filled with phrases such as "the Sisters have confirmed...the Sisters have verified..."' Dr Maeve O'Rourke‏ @maeveorourke23h23 hours agoIt is time for Magdalene survivors' testimony to be accepted as 'evidence', for once and for all. @CharlieFlanagan needs to confirm that this will be the case. It is a tragedy that women have been dragged through 5 1/2 years of further suffering since @EndaKenSee More